FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
No bio...
User ID: 675
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
We have some pretty good threads going of people analyzing the bodycam video, and a number of people arguing about how justified the shoot is. What I'm curious about is, which previous examples of famous police incidents do you think are more or less justifiable than this one?
From the bit of the video I watched, it looks considerably more justifiable than Arbery, and somewhat more justifiable than Floyd or McGlockton. Significantly less justifiable than the shooting of Jacob Blake, Quite a bit less justifiable than Lil Homicide, and Ma’Khia Bryant is pretty much the gold standard of justifiable.
I'd say the cops screwed up, but were maybe technically within the law. They were dealing with a crazy lady, reacted poorly to weird behavior, and escalated things off the rails. I'd definitely be happy with the shooter losing their job, and can certainly live with murder charges, though I am curious about the contribution to the lingering unintended consequences of our last attempt at "police accountability".
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
My guess would be that once you've concluded that the subject is armed and dangerous, your job becomes securing them and ending the confrontation. If they're willing to threaten you with a pot of boiling water, how do you know they don't have a gun on them or nearby, and will escalate as soon as you turn your back? Once they've initiated a confrontation, it seems that police policy is to end that confrontation as decisively as possible, not to back off and give the suspect space to maneuver, escape, or arm themselves better.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
I mean, yes, but also no, a person wielding a weapon can charge in and close distance before the bullets put them down.
You are correct, and the phrase you're looking for is "Tueller Drill".
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
An organization starts having serious problems. People start asking questions about the guy in charge, whether he's really doing a good job, whether he should keep his job. Typically, the guy in charge and the organization as a whole dismisses these questions out of hand. When they actually put out a statement that "the guy in charge has the full backing of the Board", what usually happens is that he's removed from his position within a week or two. The fact that they need to state that he has their backing is strong evidence that he probably shouldn't have their backing. I think the claim originally comes from observing head coaches in professional sports teams.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Has the present tumult weakened your confidence that Blues have already won and Reds should despair?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
It's one of the foundational texts of the culture-war canon, in my view.
Back when this was written, Ozy was well-known as a reasonable, thoughtful pro-SJ blogger, someone who could put some real weight behind "okay, maybe some of these people are crazy, but there's a point here worth considering". I don't read it as proof that they're an especially terrible person. All they do in that essay is play out the necessary implications of liberal Progressivism. The values conflict is in fact real, and there is not in fact anything that can really stop it within a population.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
got a link? I have no idea which videos you're referring to.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Well, if he's dead, he's exhibiting a remarkable state of preservation.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
The report so far claims that only Crooks’ head and scope were visible to the sniper. No idea where they got that, or how to reconcile it with the claims Crooks was using iron sights.
well, I missed that tidbit completely. The data really is garbage.
...For amusement's sake, I expect the reports of him using iron sights are correct, and the scope mentioned there is just people embellishing via the telephone game.
I wonder if law enforcement is normally trained to suppress.
Presumably the officers armed with rifles were SWAT, and I would expect them to train on suppressing fire. Then too, I don't think it's a very difficult or unintuitive technique; it's just taking very marginal shots for lack of better ones. There's also no shortage of examples of officers spraying a suspect or assailant down with rapid semi-auto fire, whether justified or not, and the line between that behavior and intentional suppression is nebulous.
Trump's entire backdrop was supporters packed in shoulder-to-shoulder, a practice that is pretty normal for political speeches; a literal demonstration of "they stand behind what I'm saying". There was nowhere else for the shots to go but into bystanders, and the shooter's position put those supporters in enfilade. Multiple casualties were practically guaranteed, because missing everyone with a given shot was for all practical purposes impossible.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
My assessment from the audio is that someone did take a poke at him with a semi-auto rifle, and presumably there will be brass on the ground and (potentially) bullet holes in him or the building to verify that.
No idea. Just after posting the above, though, I see someone else suggested that the rapid overlapping shots suppressed the shooter, which would mean the final shot from the USSS sniper is what killed him. This would make an equal amount of sense given the audio; for that matter, at 130 yards, it might have been one of the numerous ground-level non-snipers armed with LPVO ARs who did the suppressing, which given the apparent angles, would also explain why the shots only suppressed the assassin rather than killing them. this would then be reported as "missing" in the press, but would entirely suffice to explain why Crooks stopped firing (he retreated to cover when return fire invaded his personal space) and for the delay in the USSS final shot (they waited for him to poke his head out again, or else they were setting up what would have otherwise been a very marginal shot.)
I'd bet Crooks' autopsy will be released; if he's only got the one hole, that would be good confirmation of suppression and then a killshot.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
My understanding, possibly incorrect, was that there was both a USSS sniper team, and a sniper team from the local police. My guess is that Crooks opened fire, the local sniper team shot back, and then, finally, the USSS sniper fired a single shot to confirm the kill.
This seems to fit the audio recording and the official statements that the Secret Service fired only a single round. If accurate, it's also pretty troubling that the actual USSS snipers played no actual role in stopping the shooter, only "confirming the kill" after the fact. Combined with Trump's claims that no one warned him at any point, this would look very, very bad for the secret service.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Alternatively, things really are coming apart to such a degree that even the calm, reasonable people are losing their minds.
A lot of people think that Trump dead would be a net-positive outcome. My problem isn't that this is mean, but rather that it is dangerously wrong. Trump does not generate the culture war, but rather was generated by it. Killing him will not magic it away, but will only throw gasoline on the fire.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
I read every one of these, with a mounting sense of delight with each verdict.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Not only did they overlook it, they overlooked it while the crowd was pointing and shouting, while the police responded and confronted the shooter, and while the shooter not only aimed, not only fired, but fired repeatedly. Like, it's one thing for them to miss the guy. It's another thing for them to miss the guy, while a significant portion of the crowd is pointing at him and shouting that there's a guy there.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Us mottizens want the truth.
Now there's a statement I really wouldn't lean too hard on. My guess would be that most mottezins also want to feel good, we're just a bit kinkier about how we get our kicks.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
She appears to be in a defensive crouch, away from her VIP, with no weapon presented. She appears to be in the exact opposite of an aggressive posture. And again, I'm open to further evidence, but that picture looks real, real bad.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
I honestly hadn't noticed that, and it's damning as hell.
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Trample a norm long enough, and it stops being a norm. Enforce a rule long enough, and it becomes a norm. "your rules applied fairly" was a meme back in 2014. "This will be bad if it doesn't change" was said for a decade, and it didn't change. So now we get "this will be bad".
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
Show me evidence that the fitness standards have been lowered. Show me evidence that she would have failed the old standards. I'm ready to believe it, and condemn it, but I'm not going to presume it. And to be clear, I think it's entirely possible that they have been. It's just not obvious to me based on the video. Maybe that means I'm bad at estimating bodyguard performance, but in my defense, any lack of capability on the part of the bulletcatchers is completely overwhelmed by the part where a sniper was allowed to get seven shots off at the principle.
I've seen her, and I've seen her failing to get her pistol back in her holster, apparently because of her muffin top. I've seen it in slo-mo while people mocked her.
I'm not confident she actually did a bad job, or that any of the criticism of her is deserved. I think the reports of a quota for female agents are extremely worrying, but I've seen no evidence, other than her shortness, that she's actually bad at her job. I don't see why her less than perfect beauty is relevant; either she can do the job or she can't, and most of the things I'm seeing her criticized for don't appear to be actual failures at doing the job.
What did she actually do wrong? She's pretty clearly not the one making the call on the snipers, nor is she the one making the call on getting Trump off the stage. Near as I can tell, she fucked up her holstering during an insane adrenaline dump, exacerbated by what is either some pudge or her concealed vest, or both. What's the actual complaint?
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
1yr ago
I think short of laws with teeth protecting the jobs of randos, or the big platforms adopting policies that would reduce cancellation
The big platforms have had no shortage of notable policy changes and enforcements.
Add to that the media and its narratives around harassment. They are absolutely willing to make online harassment a national issue, and have done so repeatedly over the last decade, more or less exclusively when the harassment could be framed as Red on Blue. Blue on Red harassment, on the other hand, has been deliberately facilitated by these same outlets and individuals.
So that's two obvious plausible options.
If you want to argue that women are subhuman, or should be considered subhuman, you can actually do that if you want, provided you're willing to put the effort in to write it like everyone is reading; expending some effort into anticipating and addressing other perspectives, for example. What you can't do is post a low-effort quote that assumes women are in some way equivalent to cows as part of some ancillary point. Posts like this are not conducive to good discussion with people who disagree with you, and the assumptive close is generally not a communication strategy we encourage here.
Two AAQCs, but since then two previous warnings for the exact same infraction, and this isn't a particularly marginal example of rule-breaking. I'm giving you a three-day ban. Please take some time to consider how you're choosing to engage here, read the rules, and try to follow them better in the future.
More options
Context Copy link